Overall format of DCRM: review for discussion

[JAIN FLETCHER]

Hello, BSCers,
I am sending this message because I became concerned at our last 
meeting about a possible trend I thought observed there to re-consider 
the format of DCRM.  This emerged first when we were discussing the 
language in DCRM (trying to keep it in line with that of AACR2).  At 
one point, as Bob spoke about it, he said he realized that he kept 
visualizing DCRM in the format that AACR2 currently has: a general 
chapter for descriptive rules with ensuing chapters for the different 
materials covered.  At first he apologized for describing DCRM in a 
format we had not chosen, but then said that maybe we ought to consider 
a single volume after all.  A similar point came out a bit later, as we 
were discussing trying to maintain identical rule numbering across 
materials.  There appeared to be a general agreement at the meeting to 
the idea of having a single volume.  Before agreement to this idea 
becomes much stronger, I would like to re-visit the points I made at 
ALA mid-winter 2000, which had convinced the Cte to opt for the 
separate manuals.  

I hope that, if needed, this will engender further discussion and a 
final vote.  Whatever we finally decide, I would like our resolution 
(with rationale) to appear on the DCRB revision page, so that our 
direction is clear and all of the Working Groups can plan accordingly.  

In reviewing my notes from that meeting, I notice that I made the 
following points, before talking about the PROS and CONS of each 
approach:
	-- Advocate no attempt at rule number correlation beyond area 
designations (this resolve seems to have vacillated again at the past 
meeting)
	-- Advocate that we have separate designations for each 
material type (as we have since decided, e.g., B for books, PM for 
printed music, etc.), whether DCRM's format ends up being a single book 
or a manual.  This way the rules can be unambiguously referenced; these 
designations also have implications for the $e of the 040.

Also, before I presented the PROS and CONS at that meeting, I reminded 
everyone that I was not yet addressing the medium by which these rules 
would likely be delivered, but mentioned that it would probably be both 
print and electronic.  The implications of either or both of these 
possibilities should be weighed as we consider the format of DCRM.  Now 
is probably the time to discuss that matter thoroughly, as well.

Considerations for a single volume, with a chapter for each format:
	PROS
	-- Would have an overall chapter for general rules, which 
	should help shorten ensuing chapters 
	-- Would have an all-inclusive glossary and index 
	-- Appendices ("Early letter forms"; "Minimal level records") 
	would cover all materials

	CONS
	-- Would be humungous!
	-- To help keep size down, the creators of rules for each 
	material would be under the gun to keep their chapters as brief 
	as possible.  This would mean they would have to comb carefully 
	through the wording of their chapter to delete repetitive 
	instructions; they would probably also be asked to use as few 
	examples as possible.  All of this can lead to an obscuring of 
	clarity for non-book format users. 
	-- Because of the fewer materials being considered in DCRM, it 
	would be impossible to align chapter numbering with that of 
	AACR2 (alternative proposal: the chapters could be headed with 
	material name and the rule numbers preceded with each 
	material's acronym [e.g., PM0A, B5B5]).

Considerations for having a separate manual for each material:
	PROS
	-- Each could provide an introductory chapter, which would not 
	necessarily be a chapter of general rules, but one giving the 
	overarching principles for DCRM rules (such as the importance 
	of transcription; information suited to the material and its 
	own rare/special issues 
	-- There would be room for a sufficient number 
	of examples appropriate to the material 
	-- There would be room for "instructional text" (helpful for 
	non-book catalogers unfamiliar with rare/special material 
	cataloging)

	CONS (or, "challenges")
	-- Glossary, index, appendices, etc., would have to be repeated 
	for each manual but "weeded" to include only useful terminology 
	appropriate to the material 
	-- Each rule would have to be fully stated, with its language 
	in line with that of the other manuals

Some follow-up considerations:
I think we need to remember that most of the users of the rules for the 
non-book formats will come from a relatively small pool of catalogers 
who are often located in areas away from a special collections or a 
main cataloging department.  Putting these rules out in a large 
(possibly expensive) single volume would possibly prevent these people 
from acquiring it for their own locations.  Even if DCRM were to be put 
out in one volume in electronic format, it is likely that these same 
people would print or download only the chapter useful to them, thus 
missing out on the full context given elsewhere within.  Having a fully 
self-contained manual for each format (whether in print, electronic or 
both) would solve most concerns raised here.



Jain Fletcher 
Cataloger, Dept. of Special Collections 
A1713 YRL
Research Library - UCLA
Box 951575
Los Angeles, CA   90095-1575

v: (310) 825-2422
f:  (310) 206-1864